Interprofessional Education on Complementary and Integrative Medicine

Homberg, Angelika; Stock-Schröer, Beate

doi:10.1111/tct.13280

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More than 70% agreed or rather agreed that CIM at university hospitals should be an interprofessional task, with nurses more likely to agree than physicians. The high demand for interprofessionality was also expressed in a study by Homberg and Stock-Schröer, who used a qualitative approach to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of interprofessional CIM education in Germany and Switzerland ( 54 ). They concluded that an interprofessional approach could help to overcome stereotypes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the gap: attitudes, knowledge, and training needs in complementary and integrative medicine among healthcare professionals at German university hospitals

Hesmert,

Klocke,

Stolz

et al. 2024

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe use of Complementary and Integrative Medicine (CIM) is very popular among the general population in Germany. However, international studies show that nurses, physicians, and other health care professionals (HCPs) at hospitals often do not feel sufficiently informed about different CIM approaches. Moreover, they do not feel trained enough to counsel their patients appropriately. In the German-speaking context, particularly within university hospitals, research on this subject is scarce. Therefore, the aim of this explorative study was to evaluate attitudes, subjective knowledge, and needs regarding CIM among HCPs with direct patient interaction across all four university hospitals in the federal state of Baden-Württemberg, Germany (Tübingen, Ulm, Freiburg, Heidelberg).MethodsThe multicenter, cross-sectional, anonymous full survey was conducted online using a self-developed, semi-structured, web-based questionnaire. Recruitment took place via all-inclusive e-mail distribution lists of all four university hospitals.ResultsA total of n = 2,026 participants (response rate varied by location from about 5 to 14%) fully answered the questionnaire. Nurses constituted the largest professional group (n = 1,196; 59%), followed by physicians (n = 567; 28%), physiotherapists (n = 54), psychologists (n = 48), midwives (n = 37), and other professions (n = 124). More than two-thirds (71%, n = 1,437) of the participants were female and 14% (n = 286) reported additional training in CIM. The overall attitude toward CIM (10-point Likert scale, 10 = “very favorable”) was clearly positive (M ± SD: 7.43 ± 2.33), with notable differences between professional groups: midwives (9.05 ± 1.18), physiotherapists (8.44 ± 1.74), and nurses (8.08 ± 1.95) expressed the highest support, whereas physicians (5.80 ± 2.39) the lowest. 42% of the participants incorporated CIM in patient care (from 33% of physicians to 86% of midwives). Overall, relaxation therapy (n = 1,951; 96%), external applications (n = 1,911; 94%), massage (n = 1,836; 91%), and meditation/mindfulness (n = 1,812; 89%) were rated as useful or rather useful for patients. The average self-assessed knowledge level about CIM was moderate (M ± SD: 5.83 ± 2.03). Most of the participants found CIM training at university hospitals important and saw research about CIM as one of the tasks of university hospitals. The participants expressed the highest interest in education for acupuncture/acupressure, relaxation therapies, and manual medicine.DiscussionThis comprehensive survey of health care professionals (HCPs) at university hospitals in Germany reveals a clearly positive disposition toward CIM, aligning with findings from other hospital-based surveys and highlighting differences among professional groups. While most therapies deemed beneficial for patient care are supported by positive evidence, further research is required for others. Given the average self-reported knowledge of CIM, targeted education is essential to meet the needs of both HCPs and patients and to ensure the provision of evidence-based information on the risks and benefits of CIM.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%